TURMEL: Luc Paquette appeals equipment seizure after grow charge withdrawn
JCT: Luc Paquette was charged with production and possession
for the purpose of traffiking of marijuana and when he chose
judge and jury, they droppped the production charge so he
had to go below on possession.
Since the grow equipment was not evidence of possession, he
should have gotten it back but Judge Laflamme ruled that it
should be seized.
But it is only the first chance at getting his stuff back.
There is also the appeal of the refusal to Quash the charge
as no longer known to law and refusal to stay the charge as
unconstitutional which get him back his stuff too. So a
PROVINCE OF QUEBEC QUEBEC COURT OF APPEAL
DISTRICT OF GATINEAU (Criminal Chamber)
NO: 550-36-000006-187 Between
NO: ________________ Appellant
Attorney General for Quebec
NOTICE OF APPEAL
TAKE NOTICE that the Appellant appeals against the decisions
of Cour du Quebec Judge Laflamme dated a) April 25 2018, b)
July 30 2018, c) Oct 19 2918.
APPELLANT ALSO SEEKS ANY ORDER abridging time for service or
filing of the appeal, amending any error or omission, so
that justice may be done.
PARTICULARS OF JUDGMENTS:
1. Trial was based on Admissions of the Accused.
2. Place of judgment: Gatineau.
3. Name of Judge: Cour du Quebec Judge Laflamme.
4. Charge: S.5(2) the CDSA. S.7(1) withdrawn.
5. Plea at trial: Mute. Not guilty entered.
6. Upon Admissions of the facts, the Appellant was
pronounced guilty and the production equipment was order
7. Appellant appeals against the decisions on:
a) April 25 2018 summarily dismissing the Accused's pre-plea
motion pursuant to S.601 of the Criminal Code to Quash the
indictment as no longer known to law;
b) July 30 2018 summarily dismissing the Accused's post-plea
Charter challenge to the CDSA S.5(2) prohibition pursuant to
his S.7 Charter Right to Liberty;
c) Oct 19 2918 confiscating the plant-producing equipment
for a Possession conviction after the S.7(1) Production
charge had been withdrawn.
THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL are that:
a) a S.601 motion to Quash a count in an indictment is a
question of law and though the arguments were not pertinent
to the facts in play in the present case, the arguments were
pertinent to the laws in the present case. If they were
pertinent when R. v. J.P. heard the identical successful
motion to Quash, they remain pertinent the same way now.
b) The Applicant's medical condition may have precluded a
claim on the Right to Life, it did not preclude a claim on
the Right to Liberty. After J.P.'s charge was quashed in
2003, the Crown dropped charges across Canada against 4,000
Canadians whose medical condition had no bearing. Parker
ruled Prohibition Invalid Absent Exemption! Hitzig ruled
Exemption Absent. J.P. ruled "Prohibition Invalid Absent
Exemption" and J.P. was a youth who was not even sick. The
accused did not have to be sick in order to profit from the
prohibition being invalid while the exemption was absent,
they only had to be in penal jeopardy, as is the accused
today. To say medical condition matters for the Accused when
it did not matter for J.P. would seem inequitable treatment
under the law.
In R v. Mernagh, his Charter motion was granted for the lack
of participation by doctors in the regime but found lacking
one fact of evidence and overturned for not providing the
non-medical reasons the doctors refused. Applicant herein
did ascertain the non-medical reasons the doctors used to
not participate and the Charter Motion should not have been
c) The electrical equipment was evidence of production, not
possession. When the production count was withdrawn, the
evidence of production should be returned unlike requiring a
S.24 Order for Return of the Controlled Substance.
FOR THESE REASONS, MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT
Should such motion be granted, accused seeks an Order:
A) overturning the conviction;
B) striking the word "marijuana" from CDSA Schedule II;
C) expunging convictions registered since Aug 1 2001;
D) returning the seized Controlled Substance to Appellant
pursuant to S.24 of the CDSA, and, in the alternative, if the
conviction for Possession is sustained,
E) returning all evidence not related to the Possession
offence of which Appellant was convicted.
FOR THESE REASONS, MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT
GRANT the present appeal.
Dated at Gatineau on Oct Nov 7 2018.
TO: Ministry of Justice
TO: The Registrar of the Court
JCT: So we have an appeal with the two big issues,
Interpretation Act says no revival, and Mernagh Plus Why
says letting doctors opt out is unconstitutional.